```

[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 6162-6164]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-23]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1213; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

 
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-
9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and 
MD-88 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for 
certain McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 
(MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88 airplanes. This 
proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the 
lower rear spar caps of the wings, and related investigative and 
corrective actions if necessary. This AD would also require repetitive 
inspections of certain repaired areas. This proposed AD results from 
reports of cracking of the wing rear spar lower cap at the outboard 
flap and inboard drive hinge at station Xrs=164.000; the cracking is 
due to material fatigue from normal flap operating loads. We are 
proposing this AD to detect and correct such fatigue cracking, which 
could result in fuel leaks, damage to the wing skin or other structure, 
and consequent reduced structural integrity of the wing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket 
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-5683; e-mail 
dse.boecom@boeing.com; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may 
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, 
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the 
FAA, call 425-227-1221 or 425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory 
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street 
address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the 
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly 
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; 
telephone (562) 627-5233; fax (562) 627-5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or 
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address 
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-1213; 
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-097-AD'' at the beginning of your 
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, 
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We 
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend 
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We 
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we 
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of an inspection for fuel leaks that 
revealed cracking of the wing rear spar lower cap at the outboard flap 
and inboard drive hinge at station Xrs=164.000. The manufacturer 
determined that the cracks are the result of material fatigue from 
normal flap operating loads. Inspecting this area for cracks will 
prevent crack migration and ensure repairs are done before further 
damage occurs. Such fatigue cracking, if not detected and corrected in 
a timely manner, could result in fuel leaks, damage to the wing skin or 
other structure, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the 
wing.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated 
May 8, 2009. For Group 1, Configuration 2, and Group 2 airplanes: The 
service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive eddy current 
testing high frequency (ETHF) inspections for cracking of the lower 
rear spar caps of the wings, and related investigative and corrective 
actions if necessary. The related investigative action is an ETHF 
inspection for cracking of the upper rear spar cap of the wings. The 
corrective actions include doing a temporary repair of the lower rear 
spar cap, doing a temporary repair of the upper and lower rear spar 
cap, and contacting Boeing for repair instructions and doing the 
repair. The service bulletin also describes procedures for repetitive 
ETHF inspections of any temporary repair, and corrective actions if 
necessary. The service bulletin specifies that no action is necessary 
for Group 1, Configuration 1, airplanes.
    The recommended compliance time for the initial inspection of the 
lower rear spar caps of the wings is before the accumulation of 30,000 
total flight cycles or within 3,360 flight cycles after the issue date 
on the service bulletin, whichever occurs later. The recommended 
repetitive inspection interval is 2,650 flight cycles for airplanes on 
which no cracking is found. The recommended compliance

[[Page 6163]]

time for the initial inspection of a temporary repair area is 11,000 
flight cycles after the repair is done. The service bulletin specifies 
that post-repair inspections be repeated at intervals not to exceed 
7,000 flight cycles. The related investigative and corrective actions 
are done before further flight.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant 
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is 
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type 
designs. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions 
specified in the service information described previously, except as 
discussed under ``Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service 
Bulletin.''

Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    The service bulletin specifies that you may contact the 
manufacturer for repair instructions if the crack length is longer than 
2.0 inches or is located in the rear spar cap forward horizontal leg 
radius. In addition, the service bulletin does not provide corrective 
action if any crack is found (less than or greater than 2.0 inches) in 
a temporary repair during the repetitive inspections. This proposed AD 
would require you to repair those conditions in one of the following 
ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the 
airplane that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized 
by the FAA to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 670 airplanes of 
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours 
per product to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is 
$80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this 
proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $214,400, or $320 per product, 
per inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to 
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the 
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation 
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's 
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in 
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General 
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with 
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator 
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition 
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this 
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism 
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not 
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed 
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or 
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of 
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

McDonnell Douglas Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2009-1213; Directorate 
Identifier 2009-NM-097-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 25, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Corporation Model DC-9-
81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and 
MD-88 airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 8, 2009.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from reports of cracking of the wing rear 
spar lower cap at the outboard flap and inboard drive hinge at 
station Xrs=164.000; the cracking is due to material fatigue from 
normal flap operating loads. The Federal Aviation Administration is 
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking, which could 
result in fuel leaks, damage to the wing skin or other structure, 
and consequent reduced structural integrity of the wing.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this 
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the 
actions have already been done.

Repetitive Inspections and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (g) At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. of 
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 8, 2009, do the 
actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, except 
as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) Do initial and repetitive eddy current testing high 
frequency (ETHF) inspections for cracking of the lower rear spar 
caps of the wings, and do all applicable related investigative and 
corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions specified in 
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 
MD80-57A242, dated May 8, 2009, except as required by paragraph (i) 
of this AD.
    (2) Do initial and repetitive ETHF inspections for cracking of 
any temporary repairs, and do all applicable related investigative 
and corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions 
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service 
Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 8, 2009, except as required by 
paragraph (j) of this AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (h) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 
8, 2009, specifies a compliance time after the date of the service 
bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified 
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (i) If any crack is found during any inspection required by this 
AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated

[[Page 6164]]

May 8, 2009, specifies contacting Boeing for repair: Before further 
flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with 
the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (j) If any crack is found during any inspection of a temporary 
repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved in 
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this 
AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office 
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send 
information to ATTN: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 
Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone 
(562) 627-5233; fax (562) 627-5210.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different 
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. 
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC 
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or 
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a 
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. 
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be 
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by the 
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization 
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to 
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair 
must meet the certification basis of the airplane.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 28, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-2688 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```